My hypothesis about God/gods

[JimBowie1958]

Yes and none of them are like Jesus' resurrection.

The parallel between pagan traditional beliefs and the later resurrection of Jesus was not lost on the early Christians, as Justin Martyr argued: "when we say ... Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus." (1 Apol. 21).

I asked YOU what the similarities were, because I doubt that you are that familiar with them, such as the resurrection of Osiris. Instead you respond with an ambiguous generality from an early Christian author who was trying to show similarities with local polytheistic myths, so that the Christian history did not seem to strange to them. That does not mean that all details are the same, and that none of them are significant

So you duck the question, is it because you cannot answer the question or you are just too bored to?

What question did I miss? You can cherry-pick which of the early Christian writers you care to believe and dismiss any that disagree with your dogma but that doesn't show my ignorance.

What are the similarities you claim exist between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that of the polytheistic myths?

lol, lets see if you can get it this time.

 

[alang1216]

You obviously have not even read on the topic.

You are an ignotheist.

Actually I think I'm pretty well read. Dismiss me if you wish but that doesn't convince me you know anything. Just the opposite in fact.

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force.

The enormous size of the universe done in such little time, mere fractions of a second, tells me that for all practical purposes the Creating force is omnipotent.

Set Theory tells me that such an infinity of infinities contains all possible sets of qualities that are positive qualities, to include intelligence and a personality. This is affirmed by revelations shared with mankind for eons.

The visible order in the universe tells me this Creative intelligence is moral and orderly.

The sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ tells me the Creator is also a loving Creator that wants us to respond to Him in a positive and voluntary way.

But this is all the subject of debate and discussion for millennia the only difference is that the Big Bang has been proven and hence so has the Creation event itself, thus implying a Creator more than ever.

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds.

God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see.

I asked YOU what the similarities were, because I doubt that you are that familiar with them, such as the resurrection of Osiris. Instead you respond with an ambiguous generality from an early Christian author who was trying to show similarities with local polytheistic myths, so that the Christian history did not seem to strange to them. That does not mean that all details are the same, and that none of them are significant

So you duck the question, is it because you cannot answer the question or you are just too bored to?

What question did I miss? You can cherry-pick which of the early Christian writers you care to believe and dismiss any that disagree with your dogma but that doesn't show my ignorance.

What are the similarities you claim exist between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that of the polytheistic myths?

lol, lets see if you can get it this time.

My contension is that early Christians were intent on converting pagans and to do this their god had to be more powerful than the pagan gods. It was this pressure that led to the idea of resurrection from the dead. If a pagan god could do it, then the Christian god also had to. Same with miracles like healing the sick. Those stories would have been very appealing to pagans dissatisfied with the results of sacrifices to their gods.

Before this they attempted to appeal to Jews with stories of how Jesus was the messiah and was directly decended from King David and fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

The resurrection, miracles, and porphecy filling were theological inventions, not actual historical events.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually I think I'm pretty well read. Dismiss me if you wish but that doesn't convince me you know anything. Just the opposite in fact.

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force.

The enormous size of the universe done in such little time, mere fractions of a second, tells me that for all practical purposes the Creating force is omnipotent.

Set Theory tells me that such an infinity of infinities contains all possible sets of qualities that are positive qualities, to include intelligence and a personality. This is affirmed by revelations shared with mankind for eons.

The visible order in the universe tells me this Creative intelligence is moral and orderly.

The sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ tells me the Creator is also a loving Creator that wants us to respond to Him in a positive and voluntary way.

But this is all the subject of debate and discussion for millennia the only difference is that the Big Bang has been proven and hence so has the Creation event itself, thus implying a Creator more than ever.

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds.

God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see.

What question did I miss? You can cherry-pick which of the early Christian writers you care to believe and dismiss any that disagree with your dogma but that doesn't show my ignorance.

What are the similarities you claim exist between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that of the polytheistic myths?

lol, lets see if you can get it this time.

My contension is that early Christians were intent on converting pagans and to do this their god had to be more powerful than the pagan gods. It was this pressure that led to the idea of resurrection from the dead. If a pagan god could do it, then the Christian god also had to. Same with miracles like healing the sick. Those stories would have been very appealing to pagans dissatisfied with the results of sacrifices to their gods.

So St Paul and St Peter went to the death insisting that mere marketing ploy was true?

You know there are records/writings of the early church fathers that leave an unbroken chain of authenticity to the New Testament accounts. Unless they all lied and all the Apostles lied and died for those lies too your scenario if a tad unbelievable except to the naturalist who starts with the assumption that no supernatural events can occur before they ever investigated any of the facts of the matter. Methinks that describes you.

Before this they attempted to appeal to Jews with stories of how Jesus was the messiah and was directly decended from King David and fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

Ummm, they WERE Jews, dude, lol.

So where was Jesus' body on the day of Pentecost when the first sermon was given by St Peter proclaiming Christ resurrected? He was just lying about that too and let himself die for that lie?

roflmao

The resurrection, miracles, and porphecy filling were theological inventions, not actual historical events.

 

[alang1216]

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force.

The enormous size of the universe done in such little time, mere fractions of a second, tells me that for all practical purposes the Creating force is omnipotent.

Set Theory tells me that such an infinity of infinities contains all possible sets of qualities that are positive qualities, to include intelligence and a personality. This is affirmed by revelations shared with mankind for eons.

The visible order in the universe tells me this Creative intelligence is moral and orderly.

The sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ tells me the Creator is also a loving Creator that wants us to respond to Him in a positive and voluntary way.

But this is all the subject of debate and discussion for millennia the only difference is that the Big Bang has been proven and hence so has the Creation event itself, thus implying a Creator more than ever.

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds.

God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see.

My contension is that early Christians were intent on converting pagans and to do this their god had to be more powerful than the pagan gods. It was this pressure that led to the idea of resurrection from the dead. If a pagan god could do it, then the Christian god also had to. Same with miracles like healing the sick. Those stories would have been very appealing to pagans dissatisfied with the results of sacrifices to their gods.

So St Paul and St Peter went to the death insisting that mere marketing ploy was true?

You know there are records/writings of the early church fathers that leave an unbroken chain of authenticity to the New Testament accounts. Unless they all lied and all the Apostles lied and died for those lies too your scenario if a tad unbelievable except to the naturalist who starts with the assumption that no supernatural events can occur before they ever investigated any of the facts of the matter. Methinks that describes you.

Before this they attempted to appeal to Jews with stories of how Jesus was the messiah and was directly decended from King David and fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

Ummm, they WERE Jews, dude, lol.

So where was Jesus' body on the day of Pentecost when the first sermon was given by St Peter proclaiming Christ resurrected? He was just lying about that too and let himself die for that lie?

roflmao

The resurrection, miracles, and porphecy filling were theological inventions, not actual historical events.

I'm not accusing the early Christians with willful fraud or cynical deceptions. I think they were pious men who fervently believed in their cause. That doesn't mean that what they believed was true.

This was a time when little was written down and the stories of Jesus were passed orally, like a game of telephone. There is poster here, PostmodernProph, with a sig of "God has always known you wouldn't believe he existed". If he (or she) was an early Christian missionary these words may have been accepted as divinely inspired truth and ended up in scripture. Who knew different?

We can watch videos of Pres. Reagan's speeches and an easy to view legislative record of what he said and did. Listen to todays commentators idolizing him and then compare their words to his and you'd be astonished. In a few short decades he is already a mythological figure in the popular mind.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My contension is that early Christians were intent on converting pagans and to do this their god had to be more powerful than the pagan gods. It was this pressure that led to the idea of resurrection from the dead. If a pagan god could do it, then the Christian god also had to. Same with miracles like healing the sick. Those stories would have been very appealing to pagans dissatisfied with the results of sacrifices to their gods.

So St Paul and St Peter went to the death insisting that mere marketing ploy was true?

You know there are records/writings of the early church fathers that leave an unbroken chain of authenticity to the New Testament accounts. Unless they all lied and all the Apostles lied and died for those lies too your scenario if a tad unbelievable exit cept to the naturalist who starts with the assumption that no supernatural events can occur before they ever investigated any of the facts of the matter. Methinks that describes you.



Ummm, they WERE Jews, dude, lol.

So where was Jesus' body on the day of Pentecost when the first sermon was given by St Peter proclaiming Christ resurrected? He was just lying about that too and let himself die for that lie?

roflmao

The resurrection, miracles, and porphecy filling were theological inventions, not actual historical events.

I'm not accusing the early Christians with willful fraud or cynical deceptions. I think they were pious men who fervently believed in their cause. That doesn't mean that what they believed was true.

This was a time when little was written down and the stories of Jesus were passed orally, like a game of telephone. There is poster here, PostmodernProph, with a sig of "God has always known you wouldn't believe he existed". If he (or she) was an early Christian missionary these words may have been accepted as divinely inspired truth and ended up in scripture. Who knew different?

We can watch videos of Pres. Reagan's speeches and an easy to view legislative record of what he said and did. Listen to todays commentators idolizing him and then compare their words to his and you'd be astonished. In a few short decades he is already a mythological figure in the popular mind.

It depends on the kind of memory being used and how it is being recalled. If you walk up to a person and ask for specifics that are unimportant to that person, then there is a high likelihood of them getting things wrong. But if you ask them to tell you what they remember of an event that is important to them, they get things amazingly accurate.

this research by an oral historian shows the conclusions he reached after conducting decades of interviews with various people.

http://web.uvic.ca/vv/stolo/Hoffman, reliability and validity in oral hist.pdf

I think that our findings are consistent with the prevailing view that there are several kinds of memory, and that some of them require considerable rehearsal. As I have just suggested, one kind is short-term and disappears when it no longer needs to be retained.

Other kinds of memory are semantic, or procedural, exemplified by the memories of how to read, how to ride a bicycle, or how to drive a car. These ordinarily require much rehearsal or practice, but once learned they exhibit little or no loss in memory over the course of a lifetime.

Some experiences seem to leave lingering records. Endel Tulving calls them episodic memories. How long they are retained depends in part on how much we rehearse them. We remember what we had for breakfast today, or even dinner yesterday, though we may not have thought about it until now.

But unless we actually rehearse these memories, it is doubtful we will be able to retain them for years, let alone decades, as seems to be the case with archival memories. When viewed from this perspective, archival memories are a subset of episodic memories. They consist of those special memories which, because of their relevance to our conception of ourselves, have been reviewed and pondered to the point that they have become indelible.

That this would describe how the early church regarded Jesus Christ would be an understatement and there is no real valid basis for questioning the reliability of their memory of the events since it was central to their new lifestyle.

How Reliable were the Early Church?s Oral Traditions? ? ReKnew

We thus conclude that, while the recollection of Jesus’ words and deeds would have been passed on primarily by word of mouth in the early church, it seems more likely than not that, to some extent at least, they also would have been recorded in writing. These written materials likely would have provided a check on how much the oral traditions about Jesus could have been altered over the first several decades of the new found Christian communities....

The overall narrative framework and essential content of the portrait of Jesus we find in these texts is quite consistent, but there is also considerable freedom in how the material is presented. The order of events and wording of Jesus’ sayings, for example, is slightly different in each Gospel, though the basic content is the same. In light of the new discoveries in orality studies, this suggests that we should view the Gospels as written versions of specific oral performances of traditional Jesus material. And the gist of it all is that it reinforces the view that the oral traditions that lie behind the Gospels — including their overall narrative framework– are solidly rooted in history....

Given the remarkable consistency of certain characteristics of oral traditions and oral performances across a wide variety of cultures, and given that most of these cultures have remained substantially unchanged for millennia, we are justified in applying these insights to our understanding of oral traditions in the early church. And this means we have every reason to suppose that the earliest Christian communities would have been invested in preserving the historical accuracy of their traditional material about Jesus, including the narrative framework of his ministry ...

For all these reasons we conclude that, contrary to this third form-critical assumption, the early church from the beginning had a rather intense historical interest in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Crucial Role of Eye Witnesses Finally, we must discuss the common assumption that oral traditions are primarily community, not individually, based. This assumption has fueled the classic form critical view that the Jesus story was largely originated and shaped to address on-going needs in the early Jesus movement. Related to this, it has fueled the view that individual eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life would have played little or no role in originating or regulating oral traditions about Jesus.

Here too research into oral traditions and orally dominated communities exposes a classic form critical assumption to be mistaken. Orality specialists now realize that, while the community plays a significant role in preserving the accuracy of an oral tradition, as we’ve seen, oral communities typically designate an individual tradent to be the bearer of the tradition and the primary one responsible for passing it on. Also, when an individual was an eyewitness to events that became part a community’s oral traditions, they are often designated the oral tradent of that tradition.

This new research sheds important light on our understanding of the oral Jesus-tradition. If the oral period of the early church functioned similarly to the way we now know oral communities tend to operate, we should expect that those individuals who were closest to Jesus during his ministry would have played a significant role in the transmission of oral material about Jesus. Yes, the traditional material was certainly shaped by the needs of the early faith communities, for, as we have seen, oral tradents always shape their performances according to the particular situation of their audience. But what this new discovery of the crucial role played by individual tradents entails is that we can no longer conceive of the traditional material about Jesus being transmitted in the early church apart from the strong influence of original eyewitnesses.

And this renders it impossible to conceive of the oral traditions in the early church veering too far from the historical events observed by eyewitnesses. The point is strongly reinforced when we recall that early Christianity was a thoroughly Jewish movement, for the Jewish tradition had always put a strong emphasis on the role of eyewitnesses. Only by appealing to credible eyewitnesses could one certify a claim as factual (e.g., Jer 32:10, 12; Ruth 4:9-11; Isaiah 8:2). So too, bearing false witness was considered a major crime. Indeed, it was outlawed in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:16). The law of multiple witnesses also reflects the life-or-death importance of this commandment in ancient Judaism. (Deut 17:6-7; Num 35:30). This emphasis on the importance of eyewitnesses was quite explicitly carried over into the early church.

The mosaic law regarding multiple witnesses was appealed to within the Jesus community (Mk 14:56, 59; Jn 5:31-32; Heb 10:28) and was made the basis of church discipline (Mt 18: 16; II Cor 13:1; I Tim 5:19). More broadly, the themes of bearing witness, giving a true testimony and making a true confession are everywhere present in the tradition of the early church (e.g., Mt 10:17; Mk 6:11; 13:9-13; Lk 1:1-2; 9:5; 21:12; 22:71; John 1:7-8, 15, 19, 32, 34. (18) As Robert Stein observes, the sheer pervasiveness of these themes in the early church testifies to “the high regard in which eyewitness testimony was held.” (19) It also explains the earlier noted high regard given to certain individuals in the early church (e.g. Peter, James, John) for their role as witnesses, teachers and preservers of the Jesus tradition, (e.g., Acts 1:15, 21-2; 2:14, 42; 3:1-11; 4:13, 19; 5:1-10, 15, 29; 8:14; 12:2; I Cor 15:1-8; Gal 2:9; Eph 2:20).

All of this is what we should expect, given that the early church was a thoroughly Jewish, orally dominated culture.

Conclusion

To summarize, it seems we have every reason to conclude that the oral traditions about Jesus in the early church were passed on in a generally reliable fashion. Notes taken during Jesus’ ministry would have constrained the extent to which these traditions could have evolved. But, even more significantly, everything we’re learning about oral traditions in orally dominated cultures suggests that the earliest Jesus communities would have cared about the historicity of their traditional material and would have been perfectly capable of preserving this historicity. And this, of course, is not good news for anyone who insists that the Gospels’ portrait of Christ is largely, if not entirely, legendary.

 

[alang1216]

this research by an oral historian shows the conclusions he reached after conducting decades of interviews with various people.

Assuming all this is true what patterns would we expect to see in early Christianity?

The oral traditions would come out of Israel and spread throughout the Roman world. Churches established from the oral stories would have very similar traditions and theology since they are derived from a single source. As time goes by Christianity develops cults that deviate from the orthodox church. They may get culled by the mainstream church but Christianity will continue to develop new ones right to this very day. You might picture it like a tree with a single root.

So what was the reality? Exactly the opposite. From the very beginning there were various understandings of Jesus, God, and what it meant to be a Christian. Most of these "roots" were culled by the power of the Roman church once it had the backing of Emporer Constantine. The oral traditions and writings of these, now heretical churches were reviewed and either removed from or incorporated into the scripture we know today. However accurately the oral traditions were passed along they were conciously edited by a committee, mainly based on if they conformed to the story the church wanted to tell.

 

[The Irish Ram]

That's not the case alang. There is nothing in the modern NKJ Bible that veers from the original works. While some words may have been translated, the concept is not changed or conformed. Archeologists claim the Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever assembled. They find it consistently dead on, and have never uncovered anything contrary to what the Bible says.
It can be trusted and verified by the originals and the never altered Dead Sea Scrolls, and by it's prophecy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

this research by an oral historian shows the conclusions he reached after conducting decades of interviews with various people.

Assuming all this is true what patterns would we expect to see in early Christianity?

The oral traditions would come out of Israel and spread throughout the Roman world. Churches established from the oral stories would have very similar traditions and theology since they are derived from a single source. As time goes by Christianity develops cults that deviate from the orthodox church. They may get culled by the mainstream church but Christianity will continue to develop new ones right to this very day. You might picture it like a tree with a single root.

So what was the reality? Exactly the opposite. From the very beginning there were various understandings of Jesus, God, and what it meant to be a Christian. Most of these "roots" were culled by the power of the Roman church once it had the backing of Emporer Constantine. The oral traditions and writings of these, now heretical churches were reviewed and either removed from or incorporated into the scripture we know today. However accurately the oral traditions were passed along they were conciously edited by a committee, mainly based on if they conformed to the story the church wanted to tell.

You assume that Constantine control the details of the reformation of the Christian church. He did NOT call for the Nicene council so he could dictate to it what the churches teachings would be.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity was illegal in the empire until the emperors Constantine and Licinius agreed in 313 to what became known as the Edict of Milan. However, Nicene Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. In the mean time, paganism remained legal and present in public affairs. In 321 (four years before Nicaea), Constantine declared Sunday to be an Empire-wide day of rest in honor of the sun. At the time of the council, imperial coinage and other imperial motifs still depicted pagan cult symbology in combination with the Emperor's image.

Constantine's role regarding Nicaea was that of supreme civil leader and authority in the empire. As Emperor, the responsibility for maintaining civil order was his, and he sought that the Church be of one mind and at peace. When first informed of the unrest in Alexandria due to the Arian disputes, he was "greatly troubled" and, "rebuked" both Arius and Bishop Alexander for originating the disturbance and allowing it to become public.[62] Aware also of "the diversity of opinion" regarding the celebration of Easter and hoping to settle both issues, he sent the "honored" Bishop Hosius of Cordova (Hispania) to form a local church council and "reconcile those who were divided".[62] When that embassy failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".[63]

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[64] He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity".[64]
In addressing the opening of the council, he "exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord" and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures with: "Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue."[64] Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.[65]
The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile.

Even afterward, Christianity was still essentially a Jewish sect that had adapted some holidays and trappings of the Roman paganism to itself.

No big deal as its core doctrine remained the same and only heresies were expunged.

 

[Abishai100]

One can argue that the essence of religion intrigue is the dialogue surrounding war.

War is defined as the conflict associated with social contract revisions.

Many religions discuss the impact and symbolism involved with war.

The Greek god Zeus is the commander of war and war-related governance, among other things. The Hindu god Shiva is the supreme master of destruction as it is deemed necessary by the foolishness of man. The Christian archangel Michael makes war with the insidious serpent known as Satan for the soul of frailty-beset mankind. These avatars declare their authority over war and sentimentality in the face of the nihilism debates created by many other gods and/or angels.

Perhaps pantheism (the belief in the existence of many gods) is related to a conscious focus on the complexity connected with the intrigue of war or social conflict.

Christianity suggests that the sacrificial Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, restores humanity to a state of humility in regards to the authority of archangels preserving peace through authoritative action (i.e., Michael's stand against the diabolical Satan, the deceiver of humanity).

If religion at least dissuades us from the problems of war and conflict, then perhaps religious avatars such as Kali (the Hindu goddess of female rage) and modern civilization popular culture art avatars such as the comic book anti-heroine Poison Ivy (an eco-terrorist who serves as a nemesis of the humanist vigilante Batman) remind us of the spiritual intrigue created by the emotional challenges of psychological war (i.e., the labor of self-improvement).

It's no wonder that the American daydream-themed Planet Hollywood capitalism restaurant franchise stirs our curiosity about coordinating social economics with 'conversational spiritualism.'


I can imagine that belief in one god or many gods facilitates my contemplation of the 'governance' over resource hoarding.

Such an image invokes thoughts of a 'parliament' of mastery or gods.

This is why I personally find the Ancient World avatar Cupid so intriguing. Cupid is an impish angel-like deity who creates spontaneous romance and friendship by shooting magical hypnosis-inducing arrows that instill psychological feelings of altruism and amorousness.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One can argue that the essence of religion intrigue is the dialogue surrounding war.
War is defined as the conflict associated with social contract revisions.

Many religions discuss the impact and symbolism involved with war.

The Greek god Zeus is the commander of war and war-related governance, among other things. The Hindu god Shiva is the supreme master of destruction as it is deemed necessary by the foolishness of man. The Christian archangel Michael makes war with the insidious serpent known as Satan for the soul of frailty-beset mankind. These avatars declare their authority over war and sentimentality in the face of the nihilism debates created by many other gods and/or angels.

Perhaps pantheism (the belief in the existence of many gods) is related to a conscious focus on the complexity connected with the intrigue of war or social conflict.

Christianity suggests that the sacrificial Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, restores humanity to a state of humility in regards to the authority of archangels preserving peace through authoritative action (i.e., Michael's stand against the diabolical Satan, the deceiver of humanity).

If religion at least dissuades us from the problems of war and conflict, then perhaps religious avatars such as Kali (the Hindu goddess of female rage) and modern civilization popular culture art avatars such as the comic book anti-heroine Poison Ivy (an eco-terrorist who serves as a nemesis of the humanist vigilante Batman) remind us of the spiritual intrigue created by the emotional challenges of psychological war (i.e., the labor of self-improvement).

It's no wonder that the American daydream-themed Planet Hollywood capitalism restaurant franchise stirs our curiosity about coordinating social economics with 'conversational spiritualism.'


I can imagine that belief in one god or many gods facilitates my contemplation of the 'governance' over resource hoarding.

Such an image invokes thoughts of a 'parliament' of mastery or gods.

This is why I personally find the Ancient World avatar Cupid so intriguing. Cupid is an impish angel-like deity who creates spontaneous romance and friendship by shooting magical hypnosis-inducing arrows that instill psychological feelings of altruism and amorousness.

1) One can argue for almost anything, but doing it rationally and coherently is another matter altogether.

2) Pantheism is not the worship of many gods; that is polytheism. Pantheism is the belief that God exists solely in the universe itself.

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) Great humor piece; I'm still chuckling. Why cant they legalize the worship of Aphrodite?

 

[alang1216]

That's not the case alang. There is nothing in the modern NKJ Bible that veers from the original works. While some words may have been translated, the concept is not changed or conformed. Archeologists claim the Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever assembled. They find it consistently dead on, and have never uncovered anything contrary to what the Bible says.
It can be trusted and verified by the originals and the never altered Dead Sea Scrolls, and by it's prophecy.

I think you're being naive.

There were plenty of Christian scriptures that didn't make the cut into what we now call the NT. None of the Gnostic works made it. Likely many works were lost forever (e.g. Q) so are not included in the NT. It is probable that more than a few of the writings attributed to Paul are pseudepigraphal. It also is likely that some of the gospels contain sections added at later dates, see Mark 16.

To say the NT we have today accurately reflects the additions, deletions, forgeries, and lost works really isn't saying much.

 

[alang1216]

You assume that Constantine control the details of the reformation of the Christian church. He did NOT call for the Nicene council so he could dictate to it what the churches teachings would be.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When that embassy failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".[63]

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[64] He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity".[64]
In addressing the opening of the council, he "exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord" and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures with: "Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue."[64].

Even afterward, Christianity was still essentially a Jewish sect that had adapted some holidays and trappings of the Roman paganism to itself.

No big deal as its core doctrine remained the same and only heresies were expunged.

Your quote seems to indicate the Emporer did call the synod but that point doesn't matter since he didn't care what Christian orthodoxy was. He only wanted order in his empire and the Roman Bishop was closest to him and had his support. He probably couldn't care less if Christianity was Gnostic, he wanted, as he said, unity. If he had supported the Gnostics you'd be referring to the Roman church as heretics and gnosticism as orthodoxy. Your Christianity is an accident of geography and politcs.

Christianity rapidly became completely separate from Judiasm thanks in large part to the work of Paul bringing it to pagans. Trying to convert pagans to Christian-Judiasm proved problematic. How many adult males were willing to undergo circumcision? Pauline Christianity broke with the tenents of Judiasm, Mosaic laws, dietary laws, temple sacrifice, etc. The one thing they kept the relationship to Judiasm for was the respect it held in the pagan world that recognized its ancient roots. Like Islam or Mormonism today it wanted a connection to an ancient tradition even if it ignored or "fullfilled" or corrected them until they couldn't be recognized.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's not the case alang. There is nothing in the modern NKJ Bible that veers from the original works. While some words may have been translated, the concept is not changed or conformed. Archeologists claim the Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever assembled. They find it consistently dead on, and have never uncovered anything contrary to what the Bible says.
It can be trusted and verified by the originals and the never altered Dead Sea Scrolls, and by it's prophecy.

I think you're being naive.

There were plenty of Christian scriptures that didn't make the cut into what we now call the NT. None of the Gnostic works made it. Likely many works were lost forever (e.g. Q) so are not included in the NT. It is probable that more than a few of the writings attributed to Paul are pseudepigraphal. It also is likely that some of the gospels contain sections added at later dates, see Mark 16.

To say the NT we have today accurately reflects the additions, deletions, forgeries, and lost works really isn't saying much.

The NT reflects the orthodox consensus among the bishops and that is all it is supposed to do.

The Gnostic scriptures are not Christian, but an alien sect posing within Christianity.

It is good they got rooted out, though they did make a comeback later in Protestantism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You assume that Constantine control the details of the reformation of the Christian church. He did NOT call for the Nicene council so he could dictate to it what the churches teachings would be.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When that embassy failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".[63]

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[64] He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity".[64]
In addressing the opening of the council, he "exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord" and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures with: "Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue."[64].

Even afterward, Christianity was still essentially a Jewish sect that had adapted some holidays and trappings of the Roman paganism to itself.

No big deal as its core doctrine remained the same and only heresies were expunged.

Your quote seems to indicate the Emporer did call the synod but that point doesn't matter since he didn't care what Christian orthodoxy was. He only wanted order in his empire and the Roman Bishop was closest to him and had his support. He probably couldn't care less if Christianity was Gnostic, he wanted, as he said, unity. If he had supported the Gnostics you'd be referring to the Roman church as heretics and gnosticism as orthodoxy. Your Christianity is an accident of geography and politcs.

You think it an accident, I think it a series of events from the Exodus to the collapse of the Soviet Union that God has shown His Grace and Protection of the church.

That is one of the key differences between people of faith and heathen.

Christianity rapidly became completely separate from Judiasm thanks in large part to the work of Paul bringing it to pagans. Trying to convert pagans to Christian-Judiasm proved problematic. How many adult males were willing to undergo circumcision? Pauline Christianity broke with the tenents of Judiasm, Mosaic laws, dietary laws, temple sacrifice, etc. The one thing they kept the relationship to Judiasm for was the respect it held in the pagan world that recognized its ancient roots. Like Islam or Mormonism today it wanted a connection to an ancient tradition even if it ignored or "fullfilled" or corrected them until they couldn't be recognized.

Couldn't be recognized? What a laugh. The old Roman Catholic mass was a Roman simulation of the Temple sacrifice, and the orthodox catholic clergy are in fact very similar to orthodox Judaic clergy.

Your rhetoric makes you say some silly things. I guess you think Buddhist monks are more similar to Judaism than Christian priests are?

The hatred some Jewish clergy show Christ is just bewildering, even to the point of purging any members who think Jesus might have been the Messiah in some form or another, while openly embracing overt atheists as compatible with its faith.

Like Christianity, the main problem with Judaism is its priests and absurd theology, another similarity of the two.

 

[alang1216]

Christianity rapidly became completely separate from Judiasm thanks in large part to the work of Paul bringing it to pagans. Trying to convert pagans to Christian-Judiasm proved problematic. How many adult males were willing to undergo circumcision? Pauline Christianity broke with the tenents of Judiasm, Mosaic laws, dietary laws, temple sacrifice, etc. The one thing they kept the relationship to Judiasm for was the respect it held in the pagan world that recognized its ancient roots. Like Islam or Mormonism today it wanted a connection to an ancient tradition even if it ignored or "fullfilled" or corrected them until they couldn't be recognized.

Couldn't be recognized? What a laugh. The old Roman Catholic mass was a Roman simulation of the Temple sacrifice, and the orthodox catholic clergy are in fact very similar to orthodox Judaic clergy.

Christianity may have kept the veneer of Judiasm but the theology is VERY different.

 

[alang1216]

The NT reflects the orthodox consensus among the bishops and that is all it is supposed to do.

The Gnostic scriptures are not Christian, but an alien sect posing within Christianity.

It is good they got rooted out, though they did make a comeback later in Protestantism.

Where did they get their authority (or yours) to determine what is orthodoxy and what scriptures are not Christian? Is it "good" they got rooted out or is it "good" because they got rooted out? If the Gnostics had prevailed would you be calling the Roman church an "alien sect"?

You are correct in one thing, you start from a place of faith and truth comes from that place. Some of us endeavor to start from a place of truth, regardless where it leads us.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Christianity rapidly became completely separate from Judiasm thanks in large part to the work of Paul bringing it to pagans. Trying to convert pagans to Christian-Judiasm proved problematic. How many adult males were willing to undergo circumcision? Pauline Christianity broke with the tenents of Judiasm, Mosaic laws, dietary laws, temple sacrifice, etc. The one thing they kept the relationship to Judiasm for was the respect it held in the pagan world that recognized its ancient roots. Like Islam or Mormonism today it wanted a connection to an ancient tradition even if it ignored or "fullfilled" or corrected them until they couldn't be recognized.

Couldn't be recognized? What a laugh. The old Roman Catholic mass was a Roman simulation of the Temple sacrifice, and the orthodox catholic clergy are in fact very similar to orthodox Judaic clergy.

Christianity may have kept the veneer of Judiasm but the theology is VERY different.

Of course it is, as modern Reform Judaism is very different than the theology of Moses. But from the very beginning Judaism implied multiple persona within God as Genesis says 'Let US make man in OUR own image'.

Christianity has been influenced by Greek philosophy in its views of the Creator. While Judaism has insisted on Jehovah remaining a tribal entity Who primarily loves only the circumcised, Christianity accepted Jesus as a Spiritual Messiah who forced the church to understand a quandary, "How can God send Himself to die for the sins of His people?" While Jesus introduced the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, as three persona within God many questions remained.

To this end Christians were influenced by the Greek Emanationists.

greek emanationism - Google Scholar

They took many of the Emanationists philosophical concepts and arguments and used them to explain the paradoxes of their new faith. The Pharisaical branch of Judaism had no need to do such things, though they have evolved to the point of accepting atheists as Jewish practitioners, despite the obvious paradox there. To be a Jew today, apparently all you have to believe in is that Jesus was a bastard and heretic.

Anything else is OK.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The NT reflects the orthodox consensus among the bishops and that is all it is supposed to do.

The Gnostic scriptures are not Christian, but an alien sect posing within Christianity.

It is good they got rooted out, though they did make a comeback later in Protestantism.

Where did they get their authority (or yours) to determine what is orthodoxy and what scriptures are not Christian?

They got it the same way that Aaron got his, via Moses whose miracles performed showed the seal of God's Herald. In the case of Christianity it was Jesus who was the Herald, and His authority was passed down through a new priesthood of people circumcised in their hearts instead of their dicks.

Is it "good" they got rooted out or is it "good" because they got rooted out? If the Gnostics had prevailed would you be calling the Roman church an "alien sect"?

If God were a woman would it rain fire from heaven every month?

The only answer to an absurd question is another absurd question.

You are correct in one thing, you start from a place of faith and truth comes from that place. Some of us endeavor to start from a place of truth, regardless where it leads us.

I didn't start from a place of faith, but I came to accept my faith from the evidence I found, and as my faith grew I began to see what I thought meaningless detail evolve into magnificent support for faith.

The world around us proves God's existence in a thousand ways that you cant see if you refuse to accept even the possibility of anything beyond the universe as we know it, despite the FACT that sciences has already proven that there are and have been other universes.

In short, atheism is born of ignorance and arrogance working hand in hand.

 

[alang1216]

The NT reflects the orthodox consensus among the bishops and that is all it is supposed to do.

The Gnostic scriptures are not Christian, but an alien sect posing within Christianity.

It is good they got rooted out, though they did make a comeback later in Protestantism.

Where did they get their authority (or yours) to determine what is orthodoxy and what scriptures are not Christian?

They got it the same way that Aaron got his, via Moses whose miracles performed showed the seal of God's Herald. In the case of Christianity it was Jesus who was the Herald, and His authority was passed down through a new priesthood of people circumcised in their hearts instead of their dicks.

Gnostics are probably as hold as every other Christian sect (or do you know otherwise?). How do you know Jesus' "new priesthood" weren't the Gnostic priests? Or is this a case of might makes right? God would never have let them lose if they were his people.

 

[peach174]

Everything written in the old and new testament about end times before Jesus returns is happening and coming true right before our very eyes.
It is happening in the very order that it was written.
You all can believe it or not.
It is up to you as an individual.